|
|
"A comprehensive, collaborative elections resource."
|
The Anti-Injunction Act complications [re: legal challenges to the PPACA]
|
|---|
| Parent(s) |
Issue
|
| Contributor | Brandonius Maximus |
| Last Edited | Brandonius Maximus Sep 14, 2011 10:15am |
| Logged |
1
[Older]
|
| Category | Blog Entry |
| Author | Brad Joondeph |
| News Date | Friday, September 9, 2011 04:00:00 PM UTC0:0 |
| Description | The big news from yesterday's two decisions was not that Virginia lacks standing; that was a problem lurking in that case from the beginning, a nettlesome issue going all the way back to Judge Hudson's first opinion (in August 2010) rejecting the United States's motion to dismiss on 12(b)(1) grounds. Virginia would have stood on much stronger ground had it also alleged an injury in fact from the effect of the minimum essential coverage provision's necessarily pushing more Virginia residents onto the state's Medicaid rolls, and thus imposing a significant financial cost on the state. But the Commonwealth failed to do this, instead resting on the claim that it had standing based on the alleged "conflict" between its Virginia Health Care Freedom Act and the individual mandate. This was a weak argument from the beginning, and the Fourth Circuit's holding was entirely unsurprising.
What is surprising--perhaps not on the merits, but in relation to the attention the issue has received to date, from the courts and the parties--is the court's holding in Liberty University v. Geithner that federal courts lack any subject matter jurisdiction over a suit seeking to enjoin enforcement of the individual mandate because such jurisdiction is precluded by the Anti-Injunction Act. In this respect, there are some important points worth noting:
* This is a potential problem in every lawsuit currently challenging the individual mandate. That is, if the Fourth Circuit's analysis is correct, then the Supreme Court would lack jurisdiction to hear any private plaintiff's claim that the minimum coverage provision exceeds Congress's enumerated powers until after a taxpayer was assessed a penalty under ACA 1501, paid the penalty, and sued the federal government for a refund. The case thus would not reach the Supreme Court until somewhere in the neighborhood of 2015 or 2016. |
| Share |
|
|
2¢
|
|
| Article | Read Full Article |
|
| Date |
Category |
Headline |
Article |
Contributor |
|
|
